RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery in advanced age patients (>65-years-old) has been proven safe and effective. Revisional bariatric surgery is infrequently required for cases of refractory obesity. However, there is a paucity of data regarding revisional surgery for the elderly. We hypothesize that revisional bariatric surgery is viable and safe in elderly patients. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all bariatric revisions performed at two high-volume bariatric centers of excellence between 2011 and 2018. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between patients >65 and those <65-years-old. RESULTS: 145 bariatric revisions were performed for weight loss. 10% (N = 15) were >65 years old. There were no differences in mortality between the two groups There was a longer median length of stay in the younger cohort (2 vs 1 day, p = 0.001). Percent excess weight loss was similar at 12-months, as was resolution of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric revisions in elderly patients appears to be safe and effective. Revisional surgery in this population was not shown to have increased morbidity or mortality with similar excess body weight loss when compared to a younger cohort.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Bariátrica , Reoperación , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Cirugía Bariátrica/efectos adversos , Cirugía Bariátrica/métodos , Cirugía Bariátrica/mortalidad , Femenino , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reoperación/efectos adversos , Reoperación/métodos , Reoperación/mortalidad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Pérdida de PesoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Currently, no evidence compares outcomes for techniques utilizing surgical specimen extractions bags versus unprotected extraction. METHODS: Evaluation of sleeve gastrectomies performed at two high-volume centers. Cases where an extraction bag was used (+EB) were compared to bag-less extraction (-EB). Outcomes included operative contamination, surgical site infections and extraction-site hernias. RESULTS: 674 patients were evaluated (417 in the +EB group and 257 in the -EB group). Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups. There was a trend toward shorter operative times with the -EB group (-EB = 100 min vs + EB = 106 min, p = 0.07). Gross spillage was documented as a contaminated case in 0.4% of -EB cases compared to 1.2% in +EB cases (p = 0.51). Two superficial infections were appreciated (1.2% = +EB vs 0.7% = -EB, p = 0.7) with one post-operative abscess in the -EB group (p = 0.61). One post-operative hernia was seen in each group (p = 0.62). DISCUSSION: Bag-less extraction is a safe, resource conscious method that may potentially decreased operative time.